What is ICDS Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee engaged in the business of hire purchase or leasing, being the lessor, is entitled to claim depreciation on assets leased out, even if the assets are registered in the name of the lessee and used by the lessee.

How many judgments cite ICDS Ltd. v. CIT?

280 judgments on BharatTax cite ICDS Ltd. v. CIT (350 ITR 527), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ICDS Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 115JB, Section 14A, Section 158A(1), Section 24.

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT (350 ITR 527)

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 941/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Act do not differentiate between finance lease as well as operating lease. We are of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal componen…

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 940/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Act do not differentiate between finance lease as well as operating lease. We are of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal componen…

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 939/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Act do not differentiate between finance lease as well as operating lease. We are of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal componen…

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 938/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Act do not differentiate between finance lease as well as operating lease. We are of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal componen…

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 937/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.937/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.938/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2008-09) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.939/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.940/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.941/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.942/Chny/2016 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.292/Chny/2019 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Tristar Container Services Acit बनाम/ (Asia) Private Limited Company Circle Iii (1), No. 18, Swamy Sivananda Salai, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4043-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Palani Kumar (Cit)–Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06-05-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Palani Kumar (CIT)–Ld. DR

…Act do not differentiate between finance lease as well as operating lease. We are of the considered opinion that whatever is the nature of lease, only the lessor is entitled for depreciation as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICDS Limited Vs CIT (350 ITR 527). The decision of Delhi Tribunal in Minda Corporation Ltd. V/s DCIT (69 Taxmann.com 317) has also support the same view. The case of the revenue is that in case of finance lease, substantial risks and rewards of ownership are transferred to the lessee and therefore, the lessee would be entitled to claim depreciation and not the principal componen…

Tesco Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 719/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

…s an recurring issue and identical disallowance made in the assessee’s own case relating to AY 2010-11 in IT(TP)A No.191/Bang/2015 dated 25.1.2017 has been deleted following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd vs. CIT (2013)(350 ITR 527), wherein it was held that the lessor shall be entitled to depreciation on assets leased out by him. Consequently, the lease rental payments made by the lessee is allowable as expenditure in his hands. The above said decision rendered in AY 2010-11 was IT(TP)A No.719/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 10 followed in the assessee’s own case in AY 2009-10 in IT(…

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Dholu Construction & Projects Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 119/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 119/Ahd/2020 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) DCIT Vs. M/s. Dholu Construction & Circle-1(1)(2), Projects Ltd., 401, Gala Ahmedabad Argos, Gujarat College Road Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad [PAN No.AABCD5760E] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 10.06.2022 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the Revenue is directed ag…

Tesco Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 602/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.602/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Dcit, Vs. (Earlier Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Circle – 7(1)(1), Centre Private Limited), Bengaluru. No.81 & 82, Tesco H S C, Epip Area, White Field, Bengaluru-560 066. Pan : Aabct 8915 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran:

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

…s an recurring issue and identical disallowance made in the assessee’s own case relating to AY 2010-11 in IT(TP)A No.191/Bang/2015 dated 25.1.2017 has been deleted following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd vs. CIT (2013)(350 ITR 527), wherein it was held that the lessor shall be entitled to depreciation on assets leased out by him. Consequently, the lease rental payments made by the lessee is allowable as expenditure in his hands. The above said decision rendered in AY 2010-11 was followed in the assessee’s own case in AY 2009-10 in IT(TP)A No.262/Bang/2014 dated 25.10.2021.…

Nalco Water India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -2, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1892/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Shivaji B. More

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

…t and machinery were used by the assessee company at customer‟s premises for the purpose of carry8ing out its own business. Further, in the aforesaid letter, the assessee company has also stated that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. Vs. CIT (350 ITR 527 SC) has held that even if the assets of the lessor are put at lessee‟s premises and used by the lessee, then also the lessor would get the depreciation claim for the simple reason that the lessor is the owner of their assets and the income for the lease is shown as the income in the books of accounts of the lessor. The assessee has further stated…

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3313/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 40

…2. 9.1 The Ld DRP also confirmed the disallowance. It also held that the assessee cannot be granted depreciation as the relevant information are not available on record. 9.2 This issue is now settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS vs CIT (2013)(350 ITR 527)(SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the lessor is the owner of the leased property in case of finance lease and he is entitled to depreciation on it. The contra is that the lessee is eligible to claim the lease payments as deduction. Hence the view taken by the tax authorities are against the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court.…

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 4, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 1016/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…allowing the depreciation on leased assets (net of lease rental and interest) amounting to INR 24,08,97,422 by not following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Page 6 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 India in ICDS Ltd v. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 527 (SC) and other judicial precedents. 7. Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law 7.1 The learned ACIT/ Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, 1(3) ['TPO'] erred in law and on facts in making an addition of INR 919,49,90,290 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment to the arm's lengt…

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 625/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Roti, CA

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…allowing the depreciation on leased assets (net of lease rental and interest) amounting to INR 24,08,97,422 by not following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Page 6 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 India in ICDS Ltd v. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 527 (SC) and other judicial precedents. 7. Assessment and reference to Transfer Pricing Officer are bad in law 7.1 The learned ACIT/ Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing, 1(3) ['TPO'] erred in law and on facts in making an addition of INR 919,49,90,290 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment to the arm's lengt…

Sehgal Autoriders Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 10, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 162/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune25 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.162/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sehgal Autoriders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle- 10, D-Ii, 64/6, Midc Telco Road, Pune. Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. Pan : Aafcs2240A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rishi V. Lodha Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing 25.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 6, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Hon. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals), Pune-6 Erred In Disallowing The Depreciation Claimed For The Cars Used By The Directors For Official Work Of The Company But Ownership Documents In The Name Of Individual Director. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals), Pune-6 Erred In Disallowing The Interest Paid On The Purchase Of Cars.

For Appellant: Shri Rishi V. LodhaFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.162/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sehgal Autoriders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Circle- 10, D-II, 64/6, MIDC Telco Road, Pune. Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. PAN : AAFCS2240A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rishi V. Lodha Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date of hearing 25.01.2022 : Date of pronouncement 25.01.2022 : आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Thought Works Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 43A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.580/Bang/2019: Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/s.ThoughtWorks Technologies The Deputy Commissioner of (India) Private Limited Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(1) v. Bangalore. 147F, 2nd Floor, ACR Mansions, 8th Main Road, 3rd Block Koramangala Bengaluru – 560 034. PAN : AABCT3936G. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.590/Bang/2019: Asst.Year 2012-2013 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s.ThoughtWorks Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(1) Technologies (India) Private v. Bangalore. Limited,147F, 2nd Floor, ACR Mansions,…

Thoughtworks Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 580/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Jairam Raipura, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 43A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.580/Bang/2019: Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/s.ThoughtWorks Technologies The Deputy Commissioner of (India) Private Limited Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(1) v. Bangalore. 147F, 2nd Floor, ACR Mansions, 8th Main Road, 3rd Block Koramangala Bengaluru – 560 034. PAN : AABCT3936G. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.590/Bang/2019: Asst.Year 2012-2013 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s.ThoughtWorks Income-tax, Circle 7(1)(1) Technologies (India) Private v. Bangalore. Limited,147F, 2nd Floor, ACR Mansions,…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Haryana

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4185/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…32 of the Act, while the lessee can claim expense on account of lease rental payments comprising of principal as well as interest amount. 150. The aforesaid legal position finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT: 350 ITR 527, wherein the Court held that the lessor is the owner of the leased property in case of finance lease and entitled to depreciation in respect of the same. 151. In the present case, the agreement entered into between the appellant and GE, the lessor and owner of the aircraft, is, undoubtedly a lease agreement. During the lease period, the ownership…

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 4067/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…32 of the Act, while the lessee can claim expense on account of lease rental payments comprising of principal as well as interest amount. 150. The aforesaid legal position finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT: 350 ITR 527, wherein the Court held that the lessor is the owner of the leased property in case of finance lease and entitled to depreciation in respect of the same. 151. In the present case, the agreement entered into between the appellant and GE, the lessor and owner of the aircraft, is, undoubtedly a lease agreement. During the lease period, the ownership…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2280/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…32 of the Act, while the lessee can claim expense on account of lease rental payments comprising of principal as well as interest amount. 150. The aforesaid legal position finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT: 350 ITR 527, wherein the Court held that the lessor is the owner of the leased property in case of finance lease and entitled to depreciation in respect of the same. 151. In the present case, the agreement entered into between the appellant and GE, the lessor and owner of the aircraft, is, undoubtedly a lease agreement. During the lease period, the ownership…

ACIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2230/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…32 of the Act, while the lessee can claim expense on account of lease rental payments comprising of principal as well as interest amount. 150. The aforesaid legal position finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT: 350 ITR 527, wherein the Court held that the lessor is the owner of the leased property in case of finance lease and entitled to depreciation in respect of the same. 151. In the present case, the agreement entered into between the appellant and GE, the lessor and owner of the aircraft, is, undoubtedly a lease agreement. During the lease period, the ownership…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 413/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 80H

…32 of the Act, while the lessee can claim expense on account of lease rental payments comprising of principal as well as interest amount. 150. The aforesaid legal position finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. vs. CIT: 350 ITR 527, wherein the Court held that the lessor is the owner of the leased property in case of finance lease and entitled to depreciation in respect of the same. 151. In the present case, the agreement entered into between the appellant and GE, the lessor and owner of the aircraft, is, undoubtedly a lease agreement. During the lease period, the ownership…

ICDS Ltd. v. CIT

What is ICDS Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ICDS Ltd. v. CIT

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Tristar Container Services (Asia) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Tesco Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Dholu Construction & Projects Ltd., Ahmedabad

Tesco Bangalore Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

Nalco Water India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -2, Pune

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 4, Bangalore

M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

Sehgal Autoriders Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 10, Pune

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Thought Works Technologies India Private Limited, Bangalore

Thoughtworks Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -7(1)(1), Bangalore

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Haryana

DCIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Hisar

ACIT, Hisar vs. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Hisar

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Hisar